Clintons vs. the Media

Posted on Feb 15, 2008

WASHINGTON—Are the news media being beastly to Hillary Clinton? Are political reporters and commentators—as Bill Clinton suggested but didn’t quite come out and say in a radio interview Tuesday—basically in the tank for Barack Obama?

“The political press has avowedly played a role in this election. I’ve never seen this before,” the former president said. “They’ve been active participants in this election. ... But I don’t want to talk about the press. I want to talk about the people. That’s what’s wrong with this election, people trying to take this election away from the people.”

Somewhere in there, if I’m not mistaken, he acknowledged that journalists are people, too, so I guess I should be thankful for that. And I should note that throughout the interview with Washington’s WMAL, Bill Clinton was back in loose-cannon mode. He said Hillary Clinton “has been the underdog ever since Iowa,” which is not true. To support that unsupportable assertion, he implied that the political establishment is opposed to his wife’s candidacy, which is not true. And he claimed that “we’ve gotten plenty of delegates on a shoestring,” which is true only if you don’t count the more than $100 million the Clinton campaign has raised (and mostly spent).

The former president also explained some of the campaign’s embarrassing losses by saying that caucuses “disproportionately favor upper-income voters,” and said of those rich folks that they “don’t really need a president but feel like they need a change.” I don’t recall traffic jams of chauffeured limousines around the caucus sites in Iowa, Maine and the other caucus states Clinton lost.

The theme of press bias, however, is woven through the Clinton campaign’s narrative of the story thus far. There are two basic allegations: that journalists look at Obama uncritically while subjecting Hillary Clinton to microscopic scrutiny; and that we react with hair-trigger reflexes when attacks on Obama have the slightest whiff of racism, but don’t seem to notice, or care, when Clinton is subjected to rank sexism.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

The first charge is just bogus, in my view. Like Clinton, Obama has developed position papers on all the major issues. Clinton has been able to highlight the differences between her proposals and Obama’s—for example, the fact that her plan for universal health insurance includes a mandate, whereas Obama’s does not. In debates, she has had the chance to challenge his approach and defend her own. It is not the media’s fault if voters fail to agree with Clinton that nominating Obama would be a “leap of faith.”

It is true that the candidates’ stump speeches are markedly different: Clinton’s is about competence and diligence, Obama’s about hope and change. But journalists didn’t write those speeches, campaign speechwriters did. And any reporter or commentator who failed to note that Obama is an exceptional public speaker would be guilty of journalistic malpractice.

Reporters are busy combing through Obama’s personal, professional and financial history, just as they have examined the lives of the Clintons. Obama has facilitated this process by releasing his tax returns, which Clinton has declined to do. It is not unfair to point this out.

The contention about racism versus sexism is harder to dismiss out of hand. Being unapologetically racist or sexist is no longer acceptable in this country, at least in most settings. The social censure for being publicly racist, though, is well codified; the perpetrator must recant and repent, and may never completely eliminate the taint. There’s also pretty solid consensus on what’s racist and what isn’t. The views on sexism are less settled.

When John Edwards, in one of the early ensemble-cast debates, mentioned Hillary Clinton’s attire, I think everyone agreed he had made a mistake. Yet it’s not always out of bounds to comment on a presidential candidate’s wardrobe and appearance, or else we wouldn’t have chuckled at Edwards’ $400 haircut or Mitt Romney’s game-show-host mien.

When people refer to Hillary Clinton as strident, is that a sexist code word? I think it probably is.

But when her speaking voice is described unfavorably, is that blaming her unfairly for physiology that’s obviously beyond her control? Are male journalists just not used to hearing a woman’s voice speak with presidential authority? Or are they making a valid observation about dynamics and tone, which are within her power to modulate?

Is sexism in the coverage of the Clinton campaign excusable? No, and we deserve to be called on it. But it wasn’t the media that decided she should take for granted all those states Barack Obama has been winning.

Well…not exactly. In the last polls taken prior to Rudy’s withdrawal from the race, Clinton was leading him in almost every area except parts of upstate NY, and in almost every demographic except white people in Queens and Staten Island. So it is highly unlikely that Rudy would have won that race, particularly since he was not well-loved by NYers, and not well-known beyond NYC.

Thank you for your exegesis on Obama’s position. However, at no point did I address that, either in the negative or the positive. And I am well aware of the timeline of his comments on the war.

That said, you and other Obama supporters have are STILL in denial about the fact that, despite having spoken out so strongly against it early on, he nevertheless voted to continue funding the war once in the Senate. In this regard, you and others hide behind the “well, we don’t know all the factors involved in his decisions to support or not support various bills since we don’t know the total substance of those bills” excuse. Or worse, the even lamer “if he hadn’t voted for funding, he would have been seen as not supporting the troops” excuse - which simply shows that he could not bring himself to stick to his principles DESPITE what OTHERS might have thought had he voted against all funding for the war.

Setting aside that you and others will not give Hillary the same benefit of the doubt in these regards, neither of those excuses hold water, so this STILL leaves you and others in a pickle: yes, he opposed the war, vehemently, before most, and for that he deserves credit; but he compromised his principles regarding that war by continuing to fund it, and for that he should be judged accordingly - which means NOT giving him a free pass re the war, and being a little more skeptical about who he is and what he might or might not do as president.

At the time of and before Bush launched his Mesopotamian adventure the vast majority of citizens in these United States believed that strikes of a pre-emptive nature were wrong, morally and legally. The majority opposed this war and have continued to oppose it. Only the ruling class thought it might be a “nifty” idea.

Just a timeline consideration here, in response to your post on the Obama Senate race details.

Obama spoke out strongly against the war as early as 2002, when it was becoming more and more evident, that Dick Bush was gonna do it. Im honestly not sure how involved he (Obama) was in his US Senate campaign at the time. Maybe he DID have it in his plans to run for the Senate then. I dont honestly know.

Still, its worth keeping the time line in mind, and the fact that Obama came very much to the forefront, as he argued quite publically and vehemently AGAINST what he KNEW was at least an ILLEGAL war, and what was certainly an immoral war as well. And, while the average citizen may not have been so knowledgeable about the details of the illegality or the immorality, they knew they didnt like the handwriting on the wall of what was a planned attack by the Dick Bush Cabal.

So, as a professor of law, HE may have known the details of the illegality of the thing, but he wasnt alone in the vehement protests against launching it to begin with. I mentioned before, (if only because another professor reminded me of it again few days ago) the LARGEST ANTI-WAR demonstration in the history of the world, was undertaken on Feb. 15th, 2003. I dont know why I needed the reminder, because I was in it. (at least in my local area at the time).

But I said all of that to say that even though that received next to NO press coverage in the US,, it DID still happen, and Obama was very much in the front of it, politically speaking. I think that BECAUSE the Dick Bush administration has so thoroughly suppressed so much that would have (in the past) been covered in the media, we either forget that huge population of the silent majority that have been so opposed to this thing, before it even happened, or we never really knew about it to begin with.

So yes, Obama DID take a stand then, whether or not he had already planned to run for the US Senate. Even if the US populace doesnt remember that, the millions of people who took place in those demonstrations DO remember it.

Because of that, Im not so sure how important all of these details about his Senate campaign race actually are. I could be wrong, but that is at least a thought. I suggest that only because it might be exactly his position AHEAD of the war, (that was launched anyway) that created his decision to even run for the US Senate those 2 or 3 years later.

I DO know that it was NOT Obamas intention to run for the presidency at the time that he was making his case on the horrors and illegalities of the war on Iraq. He only considered that a few years later, after being approached and encouraged by others. So, while the US Senate job may indeed have been on his mind in 2002, I would question the relevance of the specific (political/statistic) details, relative to his campaign for the highest office. In other words, he who ran against, and the percentages and all.

To sum that up: For Americans, it is VERY MUCH about the WAR.. that Hillary did vote…. FOR! We cannot deny or overlook the fact that Hillary HAS SUPPORTED her original vote for that war, until very recently. Even then, shes never suggested that she may have committed an error in judgment originally; only that shes now willing to ‘end it’ by withdrawing some troops, without sacrificing ‘American interests’.

So, if many Americans actually DO have better memories than others, how can we fault them for it?

Our country is predisposed to go to war for oil, it has been so, for many years and will continue for many more. Hillary will not stop it because she is for it, Obama will not stop it because he cannot override the tide of influence of pre-disposal.

We the slobs in the street, the ignoarant are screwed, the people do not count, hell, I would vote for Castro, at least one knows were he stands and he will follow through with his promises.

“What they fail to mention is Obama was fighting an incumbent for election to the United States Senate. Knowing he could lose that election if he said the wrong thing, he nevertheless followed his conscience and came out with a very public and unquestionable position AGAINST a pre-emptive war of aggression on Iraq.”

Not quite. Obama first ran against Brian Hull in the primary. Hull had a substantial lead coming up to the election, but lost much of that lead when he became embroiled in a domestic abuse charge. And despite last-minute endorsements from over half a dozen heavy hitters, Obama only won 52% of the vote.

In the general election, he was campaigning against republican Jack Ryan. However, Ryan dropped out of the race when he became embroiled in a very public and tawdry custody battle with his wife, actress Jeri Ryan. This left Obama with no opponent at all. Alan Keyes took up the challenge late in the campaign, but given Keyes well-established bizarre personality, Obama won 70% of the vote.

Thus, Obama did NOT become a U.S. Senator “despite” his stance on the war. He became a U.S. Senator via a series of unforeseen - and flat-out “lucky” - circumstances: had Hull not become embroiled in the domestic abuse situation, we would not even know who Barack Obama is, since Hull was highly respected and had solid centrist-progressive positions on many issues of importance to Illinois voters.

It surely would behoove all of us to recognize a biased opinion of a news ‘talking head’ OR a legitimate journalist should be able to leave his bias out of his work. How can anyone truly trust or respect ones work if they can be fair to ONLY one candidate? After years of feeling lied to by cnn,abc,msnbc,etc,etc, I was starved for truthfulness and started my search for the REAL THING and started digging for the news on the internet. I happened to invest in satelite tv around the same time and discovered Link tv and Democracy Now, with Amy Goodman. That was one of the luckiest days of my adult life because I finally found people that told both sides of the story on every issue. I discovered Dahr Jamail, investigative reporter, who has been all over the middle east since this damnable illegal & unnecessary invasion/occupation began. Now I know the truth on a much grander scale than I did before and only watch the MSM to catch them on their lies,desceptions and omissions. I am so grateful for Direct TV and the opportunity to finally hear/see programs with REAL integrity!

“Ultimately, the Clintons are now being seen as purveyors of the past and standing in the way of a nationwide movement of inspirational change for all Americans. In 2008 Hope is not just a place on a map of a small southern state…its becoming a reality.”

***

This brings to mind a note from the “other” side. Happily exclaiming, “We voted for Obama!” Then adding, “We are making history!”

People all over the country, repub, dem and independent recognize we as a nation cant afford to keep going down the same old road! There needs to be change, real change. Right now, how we define that and break it down is not so important as recognizing Clinton and McCain are viewed by many as representing the same-ol-same-ol that we need to change!

Your pointing out the absence of a “plan B” clearly defines the absence of a vision for real change. Thanks for pointing that out.

Mike Mid-City:

“I dont think that voting to start an immoral, preemptive war of aggression is a recommendation for President.

Its that easy.”

***

Actually it is just that easy! People try to diminish the value of this issue by saying Obama’s not voting for the war has no meaning because he wasn’t in the Senate. That statement is misleading, because it implies Obama as saying he “voted” which he never has.

What they fail to mention is Obama was fighting an incumbent for election to the United States Senate. Knowing he could lose that election if he said the “wrong” thing, he nevertheless followed his conscience and came out with a very public and unquestionable position AGAINST a pre-emptive war of aggression on Iraq. His “vote” was taking an unpopular stand against the “establishment” and following his own conscience. A clear sign of integrity. And that integrity is not lost on the voting public!

Are you serious? Do you know anything about history? Its a joke, satire. Jews have been accused of cooking and eating gentiles for millenia, because they formed a culture outside the norm. The cartoonist is just making fun of that. You take things too seriously.

MIKE, YOU ARE SO RIGHT !!! HILLARY DID VOTE FOR WAR AS A LAST RESORT. OBAMA DIDN’T VOTE FOR THE WAR BECAUSE HE WASN’T IN THE SENATE YET…I WOULD HAVE WON THE POWERBALL LOTTERY LAST WEEK, EXCEPT I DIDN’T BUY A TICKET. SO HERES MY ADVICE TO YOU,,,GET A BUCKET OF FRIED CHICKEN AND SOME JONNIE WALKER RED SCOTCH AND CHILL OUT…....

Let’s face it, Hillary has been planning from the day she left the Whitehouse to move back in. It is like, she demands it because she feels entitled to be president, her right of entitlement is in the cards. Slobs in the street be warned.

BuzzFlash started returning my posts today. I have had a lot of posts on there, but the editor has put the hex on me.

He was still accepting, but not printing my posts until today. I went from having several a day on the site to none about a month ago when I called him on not being impartial. He said he was, but has really gone negative on Clinton.

I am not a huge fan of Clinton, but it should be even coverage if you claim to be not endorsing a candidate.

I miss you Marjorie. Did you just stop posting or did he deny you entrance as well?

I have been trying to find Marjorie. I miss her from BuzzFlash and wonder if she was excommunicated as well. Until today they were accepting my posts, but not printing any, even if they were just about Republicans.

Today I started getting everything back. I was wondering if that is why I haven’t seen anything from Marjorie in a long time.

Now I’m telling you all of this not to suggest that we deserved some brownie points from the campaign or something, but to show you that we were pretty damn nice to her campaign privately and when we didn’t have to be. And we got pretty much nothing in return other than “you hate us, now go away” the first time we wrote anything critical of her.

After something like that happens, it changes your view of the campaign and eventually the candidate. There is a definite sense that you’re dealing with people who don’t appreciate you, who think you owe them something, and who think that they’re so much better than you that you should be happy that they let you help them at all. It’s not a good thing, and it suggests something about them that is rather not good.

Subseqeuntly, I’ve talked to other journalists I know, people who were not around in the 90s and weren’t part of the get-Bill posse, and they’ve had the same experience with the campaign. Strong-arming to the point of creating resentment. And, interestingly, they did not have the same experience with the other campaigns. Neither have we.

So that’s the part of the story that I can tell. Some of you may think that we’ve been mean to Hillary of late, but you don’t know the whole story of how much we tried to help and go treated pretty crappy as a result. That was a window into the soul of her campaign, and it wasn’t real pretty.
John Aravosis | 02.17.08 - 7:09 pm | #

This is the reason John Avarois is so “mean” to Hillary;;;;;In his own words.

Doozy, unfortunately it was an off the record lunch with the campaign that I can’t recount because, even though they really ticked us off, if things are off-the-record they have to be kept that way. But, I can tell about aspects of our relationship with the campaign that were not off-the-record.

Joe and I reached out to Hillary’s people two years ago. Sat down with them, told them we were agnostic on her and her campaign - didn’t love her, didn’t hater her. But that we were concerned that a lot of folks online, the blogosphere, the Netroots, etc., seemed to really really really not like Hillary, and that didn’t seem helpful to the party, especially since at that time she was the shoo-in to win the nomination anyway. So, we sat down for 2 hours and gave them lots of suggestions as to how they could better improve relations out there. In return, a number of bloggers did get invited to a lunch with bill, and that was great. But since that time, and we’re talking 18 months ago, the campaign’s relations with a lot of us were nonexistent. I mean, I received only 2 emails from their outreach person in 6 months. Nothing else. In the meantime, I’d go on Paula Zahn’s show and Howie Kurtz’s show, sometimes 3 times in a month, and be asked to defend Hillary and I would. I never got a call, never got an email, never got anything from the campaign thanking me. I didn’t say a thing, it didn’t piss me off, but I did think it weird that no one even said thanks, but whatever. And again, remember, at this point, we were one of the only blogs that hadn’t turned against her (this is a good year ago). I wasn’t particularly angry that they never reached out, but it does give you a window into what critics raise - this sense that somehow they were doing me a favor by letting me publicly defend her, so there was no need to say thanks.

So, then the controversy over Hillary’s Iraq war authorization vote comes up. Do we join in the call for her to apologize? No. I did, however, write a few posts, maybe 3, about Hillary’s comments about having lived through 9/11 and that’s why she feels the way she does about Iraq. As a result of those handful of posts, I learned that apparently this meant that I had written Hillary off, had decided to support another candidate, and that’s why the campaign was no longer talking to me (of course in the previous 6 months, as I said, I’d been contacted twice by their outreach person, so the not talking had begun a half year earlier, but whatever). Basically, we went out of our way to try to help her for free, and I repeatedly defender her on TV, because she’s a powerhouse in the party and the level of hate and/or visceral dislike for her didn’t strike as very healthy (especially since, at the time, she was THE shoo-in for the nomination). In return, since we didn’t drink the Kool-aid 100% of the time, but only 97% of the time, we were written off as the enemy.

Oh, there’s another story too. A year ago at the DNC winter meeting Joe and I were trying to get an interview with Hillary. Again, keep in mind that we’re the only top blog that wasn’t openly antagonistic to her. A top staffer of hers tells us that he can likely bring her down to the blogger area of the conference and that we’ll get first dibs at her. Joe, my coblogger, tells Hillary’s person “no.” Joe says “turn around.” It was someone who may have publicly eviscerated Hillary and caused quite a scene, something she really really really didn’t need. Her staffer thanked us, and Hillary never appeared. This was before the handful of posts I wrote criticizing her.

“The USA needs the touch of a woman to salve the wounds it has gone through and is still going through.”

I find it interesting that this sentiment is considered acceptable in our political dialogue, since I’ve heard it more times than I can recall, and yet it’s patently sexist.

Any time one sex is singled out as being exceptionally better (particularly when it comes to their humanity), by it’s very nature it is a sexist statement. And for those of you who think it’s being realistic to believe that women are more caring or nuturing than men, explain the following:

This particular cartoon proves beyond a doubt that Jews are fearless and wantonly explicit in their hatred of our European-American heritage and our people and they are not scared in the least to say it openly because there will NEVER be consequences for them. Of course if this cartoon taught someone how to cook a Jew, careers would end, death threats would commence and fines or imprisonment would follow. Jews are the most hateful people on the face of the earth.

The magazine was not bought at a Zionist meeting or AIPAC meeting, no, far more insidiously its sold openly on the shelves of Barnes and Noble.

A pdf of the cartoon has been uploaded here, check it out, be outraged, these Jews have some serious explaining to do as to what makes this funny.

More trash passing off as Jewish entertainment can be seen at Heeb Magazines website.

How to contact Barnes and Noble and get this garbage off of store shelves? Contact customer support and share a piece of your mind.

Think CNNs Wolf Blitzer will cover this story? Or maybe FOXs Britt Hume will give it some air time.

Dont hold your breath for this atrocious cartoon to ever see the light of day in the Zionist owned MSM. In that Never-Never Land of disinformation and propaganda, news anchors get a pat on the back and pay raises anytime they slander, malign or distort anything Muslim/Arabic.

But woe to the fool who dare question anything about Israel/Zionism, for their reward is to be fired, threatened with violence, possibly even tossed in prison, all for asking honest questions about the descendants of the Khazars.

DOESNT come as a surprise to me coz a certain montreal dweller called Mr Kosher explained certain things to me and since that day i avoid zionists like the disease it is and like the disease they are.

greg bacon, thanx and the advantage of such a forum is that all bring something to here and hence i just get the headlines easy instead of sifting through 90 pages per day

Inflected Form(s): plural bream or breams
Etymology: Middle English breme, from Anglo-French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German brahsima bream, Middle High German brehen to shine
Date: 14th century
1: a bronze-colored European freshwater cyprinid fish (Abramis brama); broadly : any of various related fishes
2 a: any of various marine fish (family Sparidae) related to the porgy called also sea bream b: any of various freshwater sunfishes (Lepomis and related genera); especially : bluegill

You say Hill-the-business-shill “... for all her faults surely has a better grasp of what is happening on our planet and has shown that she can walk and think;”

But

You ask “what about opposition to an administration that has no real opposition yet” Since the business shill has been in the Senate for almost 8 years, and the administration (admittedly) has no opposition, why should any thinking voter who opposes this administration’s track record vote for her?

She’s already the “one” the undemocratic, Democrats have “decided” like the other “decider” they don’t give a rats ass about votes or opinion. If she can’t “win” honestly, the “party” is prepared to seat Michigan, Florida, and give her a lion’s share of “super delegates.

But to be fair to the business shill, I believe this country of once strong, and opinionated people is voting for a Mommy or Daddy who will keep them warm and safe. They sure don’t have the guts or fortitude to question this Pakistani type process.

Keep up the bream. And if your puzzlement is real, I am not writing a book to explain. I suppose you thought the Iraqi war felt quite okay to get into, that the military has not been sucked into politics, that the dumbing down of the public is not continuing, and that democrats are huffing with Huffington. Sorry, I don’t think Sen. Kennedy is the party’s leader either, and, oh my, if Obama is chosen to run against a battle tested candidate—much as I may oppose him. Yes, I believe that Truthdig could go a bit more the way of analysis and little less the way of feel good opinion.

All that air spent on Obama reminds me of the air spent in getting us into the Iraqi war. I am against Obama because
a. he is unelectable;
b. he has to authority except such as rhetoric;
c. the military is likely to take over if he gets to run the country;
d. Bush’s dream is still to get into a war with Iran before he leaves office;
e. what about opposition to an administration that has no real opposition yet;
f. the next 8 years for America are going to be economically and geopolitically traumatic;
g. Hillary Clinton, for all her faults surely has a better grasp of what is happening on our planet and has shown that she can walk and think;
h. Truthdig has dug itself into an untenable corner by pushing an agenda critical of government, but no real editorial depth;
i. further broof that the media is a no brainer.

Yeah, Ms Faludi knows what she’s talking about. I have read so much sexist vitriol against Hillary from supposedly respectable places, and it is particularly offensive since there are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticise her, you don’t need to call her a wrinkly badly-dressed ball-busting bitch who can’t control her man, or a puppet to her husband (er…no, she doesn’t strike me that way at all), or a crybaby whose manipulating the masses because her eyes got briefly soggy after a long bitter day. If they printed the racist equivalent of that ubiquitous childish prejudice against women, those editors would be rightfully run out of town. Unfortunately, you need to be a certain kind of woman (or a very special kind of man) to be able to recognise misogyny as any kind of prejudice at all. To most people, unlike racism, it is simply the ‘truth’. It’s kind of amusing that these editors are now toning down their sexism because they’ve caught on that it causes righteous anger amongst certain women en masse, who just may go out and vote for the ball-busting white bitch because what’s worse than that kind of inhumane mentality that she’s up against? Isn’t that why Bush thought it was okay to drop bombs on innocent muslims? Because of that kind of prejudice? Yes… THAT kind of prejudice. Sexism is the worst and most virulent form of racism.

Now go out there and vote Obama, because he didn’t vote to give an idiot the power to wage an unnecessary war in order to preserve a shot at the presidency (oh wow, is that ironic or what?), and he hasn’t stuffed up (publicly) yet, and he deserves his chance to completely destroy his own character in the interests of the greater good, or failing that, in the interests of his own personal ambitions.

It’s Obama’s time. No sexism is required anymore. Or ever was. But thanks for the disgusting display of it up to now.

For several years now I have noticed CNN, MSNBC, and all what is referred to as ‘mainstream’ talking heads in the so-called news rooms have drooled all over themselves with disparaging remarks about Hillary Clinton! First of all; it’s unprofessional, rude, ungentlemanly, unladylike and, last but not least, DISCRIMINATING! Just once it would be so nice to get real, truthful, informative, honest news instead of the manure they pass off as news. Chris Mathews, the little prissy jerk with the bow-tie, oh yes - Tucker Carlson, those made- up- to- the-teeth aging hidollar looking prostitutes, Wolf Blitzer,etc.,etc., are such a far cry from journalistic professional reporting of the news that I could vomit. Will someone direct me to the so-called ‘LIBERAL MEDIA’ stations that evidently don’t really exist. I am so sick of these people that are afraid of smart, strong and intelligent women that they put them down anyway they can. It’s not like every man that has been the President has done such a bang-up job. This country is suffering on so many levels that I am ashamed of mankind and their stupid, greedy, control-freaky fascist attitudes and actions! Give me a damned break!

HOWEVER…I did read this piece by Barbara Ehrenreich as it was posted at AlterNet as well, which is where I think I read it first. Or, it could have been Truthout.org, where it is also posted. I don’t know who has the ‘exclusive’ on it, if there is such a think in alternative media.

Robinson is one of those in the main street media who cannot hide their disdain for the Clintons. He seems to discount the fact of the absolute hatred that has been shown over the years and demonstarted day in day out on MSNBC by him and his cohorts:Matthews, Buchanan, Tucker, etc.

Eugene…
Great thoughts…I think that just like the bufoons who led us into Iraq with no exit strategy; no Plan ‘B’. The Clintons too have no Plan ‘B’ for this current campaign scenario, because they assuredly, unabashedly and arrogantly saw the nomination process as a mere formality; they envisioned their own liberation culminating with the throngs of convention goers. The only thing needed yet to be done was the dropping of all those pretty patriotic colored balloons from a Denver ceiling.

In their view the upstart senator from IL would have a bit of fun and excitement with his win in Iowa, but New Hampshire solidified the inevitability of her candidacy. Winning there sealed the deal and all would fall into place.

As many pundits have said over and over again during this campaign…do not underestimate the Clintons. Accordingly…no one could have predicted that the man bestowed the title of ‘first black president’ by Toni Morrison, would become the focus of the all sealed up nomination process as the campaigns headed to South Carolina. From beginning to end of that primary Bill Clinton was the galvanizing personna that had unexpectedness written all over it!

If in the end Barack Obama does win the Democratic nomination, political pundits and historic campaign types will point to South Carolina as the beginning of the end for the Clintons. Now…since the loses of Hillary in MD, DC and especially in Virginia, the word is that the failed Gulianni Firewall approach to campaigning is now underway.

Ohio & TX loom as do or die. Word is circulating that the campaign has essentially written off the African-American vote and will focus on uneducated white women and Latinos to somehow stop the ship from capsizing.

So…No Plan ‘B’ was ever talked about by the Clintons because of the certainty of her ascendency to the head of her party and what in her and Bill’s eyes was a vision of returning to what is rightfully theirs. The package deal that is the Clinton political story sees itself cleaning up the Bush dynasty disaster with it’s own dynasty. Why would the electorate ever consider anyone else?

Bottom line is they can’t stand losing and will do whatever it takes to win, even if it splits the party or means writing off a solid constituency and spinning some outlanish idea, i.e., caucus participants in the end just really don’t matter and aren’t really people reflective of needing a president in the first place. Get over it…you lost the caucuses because you didn’t fore see any importance of them in your assured nomination process. How much more insulting to the 80 % of caucus goers in places like Idaho or 70 % in Kansas can they be?!

This whole situation shows very clearly that if a campaign such as hers has no plan ‘B’ scenario worked out prior to the ship springing leaks then what kind of President would she make?

We’ve spent the last 7 years dealing with a man in the White House whose cowboy arrogance clearly shows his non-administrative understanding of the importance of having plan ‘B’s. We can’t afford not to have plan ‘B’s.

The nation is ready for change, the media isn’t on Obama’s side, and the Clintons are grasping at straws. It could get uglier yet and I for one hope it doesn’t, but I think we all know that it may be the only thing they have left and when you have no Plan ‘B’ and never had the common sense to plan for a Plan ‘B’...well it’s all they have left to spew and that will certainly spell the end for Bill and Hillary Clinton and their vision of restorating the 1990’s in the 21st century; that was then and this is now.

Ultimately, the Clintons are now being seen as purveyors of the past and standing in the way of a nationwide movement of inspirational change for all Americans. In 2008 Hope is not just a place on a map of a small southern state…it’s becoming a reality.

Seems to me that it is Mr. Robinson who cannot take criticism. His very use of his column to rationalize the media treatment is an example of what Bill Clinton is talking about. As for “investigative” journalism treating all candidates the same, I would note that the Edwards haircut was front page and Hsu who bundled contributions for Clinton was on the front page when the stories broke. Yet, the Obama-Rezko story was on the back pages. I do call it media bias when unfavorable coverage of one candidate makes front page news whereas a similar story about the other candidate gets buried in the back pages.

I’m with you on the general worth of the Huffpost, though i scroll through the comments sometimes to remind myself how ignorant and vapid my fellow countrymen are…on the other hand, seems like a few Huffposters may have migrated this way of late.

The only positive of the place is the editorial section, and the link you provided is a shining example of that. I agree, she nailed it.

And i’m coming to think that Sen Obama’s support with younger Americans is reflected in the idea she puts forth. These are the Americans who will have to clean up the messes left by their parents. They aren’t bitterly cynical yet; we should harness their hope and enthusiasm while we still can.

Maybe the part that cannot be overly stated, is the part about having the strength to take a look at oneself in an unfavorable light, in order to face the facts. Or, at least SOME of the facts.

Just from my own informal observation, that seems to be the thing that so many of us just can’t seem to be able to do. Or, when we do, we see ourselves in an unfavorable light, (even though it’s still an artificial light) and immediately assign blame (to ANYONE other than ourselves) for the fact that we don’t look so good.

Now that’s just my informal observation. I don’t have any charts or graphs to back it up.

If the anti-neoconservatives believe that all it takes to relieve their plight is to throw the ravens a dead horse’s eye, Obama is the perfect candidate. The country does not seem to realize that Bush has created a war, and the war—like it or not—will be a few presidencies long and the outcome not at all certain. The American press, generally speaking, seems to belong among those who believe that a dream will solve the problem.

ABSOLUTELY! But you know what really clinches it for me is that she has never apologized or expressed any genuine remorse about the unimaginable death, destruction, and chaos her vote contributed to. Every time she is asked about her vote she blames others or parses it as a vote for inspections and negotiation, which everyone who was around at the time knows is a complete and utter fabrication. She never looked at the REAL intelligence, and instead took Bush and Cheney’s lies as the truth. That, at the very least, demonstrates incredibly BAD judgment, but I suspect the real reason she voted for it was because her poll-driven approach to government informed her it would be too risky, politically, to not.

That’s about as concise and direct a statement about Hillary Clinton that I’ve seen. The war issue alone is enough to disqualify her from being the nominee. But there are SO many others besides. A Hillary nomination would be poison for the Democratic Party, for the country, and for the world no matter how much she is trying to repackage herself now.

It seems to me that Bill Clinton should shut his whiney mouth, pack up his paranoid delusions, and go mind his foundation, or something. He is going to sink his wife’s candidacy, whether from a subconscious desire to be “top dog” in his marriage, or because he has lost his previously unerring political intuition. At least they’ve managed to get him off the podium when she is making a victory speech!!

As for the actual press coverage: There has never been anything like this before. An attractive, articulate, visionary, charismatic black man with a shot at the presidency, and a fairly attractive, if stodgy dressing (she’s doing better), competent, smart, debate whiz female with a shot at the presidency. The press doesn’t quite know how to act.

Let’s face it, they’ve spent, what, 16 years covering Mrs., then First Lady, then Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Barack Obama is “fresh meat” for them. Everything he does seems exciting, and thus “newsworthy,” because he’s doing it for the first time any black man has done it. Naturally, they are captivated. Naturally, they are going to focus on that. Besides, in any presidential primary season, the candidate who appears to be on a roll is like a magnet for coverage. Look at the Republican race: McCain has the lion’s share of coverage because he appears to be winning. If Senator Clinton appeared to be winning, she would, too. But it’s Obama who has been winning state after region, and of course he’s going to attract the attention of the press, because that’s what people want to read about: a winner.

What Bill is complaining about is the inevitable consequence of “being inevitable.” She wasn’t, as it turned out, and that’s no longer news. Obama wasn’t, and still isn’t but is doing the unprecedented. That’s news, folks.

Robinson writes there is certainty about what is racist but not so much about what is sexist so that he can be sexist without being called out on it. HE IS A SEXIST, as are most male pundits and quite frankly, most men in America. That is the bottom line.

Have to say that I perceive the situation the same way that Bill Clinton said he did. I believe that there are far more disparaging sounding headlines for Hillary than I have seen for Obama. Come to think of it, I can’t think of one that I have yet seen for Obama!

This has nothing to do with media bias; it’s about market forces. Since candidates allow themselves to be sold like a products, they have to live by the rules of the marketplace. Everybody wants the newest and the latest. Nobody wants a 16 year old car.

Setting aside race and gender for a second—start REALLY listening to the news…. every step that Obama makes is met with giddiness by the press…. yet with respect to Hillary, the press seems to be only looking for stories that give a negative slant…. Even a Tim Russert who I always thought I respected falls into this… I’ve seen him act gleeful and giddy at the prospect of another Obama win. If I am disgusted with one thing in this whole exercise of primaries, it is the press… and by the way, when was the last time we saw them this giddy…? when they they were sitting in HumVees with the troops invading Iraq.

If you don’t think the press is giving Obama a pass in ignoring the story of his association with the indicted Rezko, then as a “newsman” what would you call it? Every time a fundraiser for the Clintons has been arrested it is front page news. Rezko is not just a fundraiser for Obama. He has had a long association with Obama since college. He helped Obama buy his million dollar mansion and Obama helped him get $14 million of Illinois taxpayer funds for his schemes. The tender care the press is giving Obama is just like what the press did for Bush. The American peope are going to have to decide if they want the juvenile press to decide who will be president or will intelligent voters decide our fate. As we all know from the disaster of the press-loving of Bush, the consequences are great.

The powers that be have already succeeded. In an election following 8 years of the worst president in history, when a Democrat victory was ripe for the picking, the party is so divided that we will be conquered in the fall.

While you all are all in-fighting and diverted from the real issues by religion, gay marriage (is that really the most important issue of our time?), morality, race and gender issues, the Republicans are quietly preparing to march in lock step to victory. You are playing right into their hands… Are we incapable of learning?

I will work for the Democratic nominee, whoever that might be, and that should be the stance of anyone who does not want to see a continuation of the disastruous Bush policies.

Fact: Hillary has been brutalized by the press

Obama has gotten a pass that will not serve
him well in the GE

Edwards received 1/3 of the press coverage

The other candidates were ruled out before a
single vote was cast

The “Super Delegates” have historically voted
for the candidate with the most delegates, so
maybe we should stop dividing the party with
that particular bait

So, like lemmings to the sea manipulated by the powers that be, including the press, off the cliff we go… I never voted for Bill, I was never a Hillary fan, but this is all leaving a lasting, bitter taste in my mouth. Is that how you want almost half of Democrats to feel in November? If not, stop the in-fighting! Any Democrat is better than any Republican, and that should be our mantra, otherwise, instead of saying “Yes We Can” we might be saying “I guess we couldn’t”.

The ‘mother tongue’ of the US nation as a republic, is English. The people who stole this land from it’s original inhabitants, brought it with them from the ‘mother country’ of England. So, it was English. Ok? Do you have that? I mean, I know it’s only US history, but it just seems like you’d be aware of how English came to be the accepted language of the New World.

That’s not to say that the French and the Spanish didn’t steal their portions as well, but in the end, it came to be the English that prevailed.

What the hell does that have to do with the fact that I am myself, of Native American ancestry? There was no ONE Native American language before the Indians were slaughtered by the Euros, just like there was no ONE language for all of the Africans that were kidnapped and imported here as chattel to build the place. And, if you read all of the ‘original’ documents, (the Native Americans had an oral not a written tradition of communication and deal making) those are in ENGLISH moron.

Like I said Chalmers, you’re scary, and I’ve got my bodyguards keeping track of you.

 While I can appreciate what you are trying to do, it is nonetheless highly patronizing, as it assumes that no one who is a believer can or does make decisions that are not premised entirely on their faith.

Actually Maani,

I really enjoyed this from jbart. I didnt think it was the least bit patronizing. Matter of fact, it was downright entertaining. Now just relax. If jbarts hypnosis technique didnt work for you, try some of that stuff they give you at the dentists office that laughing gas stuff. I cant remember the correct name of it right now. But..you know what I mean.

Try some of that. Take a couple shots and check back with us in the morning…

To one who is not a citizen of the USA and lives far far away but has been following the progress of OBAMA and HILLARY somewhat, I for one, must add that there is the lady who stood by her husband during the years of agony that her husband’s Presidency went through.

By the same token she must be a person who would stand by every American. The USA needs the touch of a woman to salve the wounds it has gone through and is still going through. For a change the USA should think about having a Lady in the White House because it may, I say may, change the UGLY AMERICAN image that every American still carries today although that is not told on his face for reasons of decorum and possibly because everyone wants the US DOLLAR. So, why irritate the Ugly American.

Many of us still dread visiting the USA as tourists after all that we hace read and do read about the USA overall. Hopefully all this can change and the ANTI CHRIST put in its place before it swallows us all.

Since the Republican party, is and has always been a minority party. The only thing they can do is divide America and pit us against each other.

That being said, sometimes I hate looking into the mirror, and don’t like having my picture taken. I suppose that’s because now, I know every little flaw in my face, every where hair should be and isn’t, and every where hair isn’t and should be. But having the strength to take a look at yourself in an unfavorable light, is sometimes necessary to face the facts. As John Stewart Mill, said something to the effect that, if you don’t know your enemy’s point of view, then you don’t know our own point of view very well either.

We are never going to find someone who is perfect. But on the other hand maybe we just might be able to discuss things and work it out, for the best interests of all.

I wanted Edwards to be the nominee, should I sulk and be angry about it?

Are we really arguing about what is fair or are we trying just to protect our own ego’s?

“You speak of love and forgiveness, look to the mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers wives and husbands of the war dead.” You still don’t get it.

Let me ask you a question.

A young man is gunned down by another young man, as the result of a robbery, gang warfare, whatever.

Another young man is also gunned down similarly.

The mother of the first young man gunned down screams vengeance, shows up in court every day during the trial, calls for the death penalty for her son’s killer.

The mother of the second young man chooses to forgive her son’s killer, and attends court but hopes the person who killed her son is given a lenient sentence, and even petitions the judge not to be too harsh.

Which mother is acting more like a Christian?

Did it ever occur to you that some of the “mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, wives and husbands” of the war dead do NOT blame Hillary? Or do consider her complicit, but have chosen to forgive her?

Are you suggesting that you speak for the mothers, fathers, etc. of every soldier killed in Iraq? And that you know the minds and hearts of every one of them?

By cyrena, February 15: “for those of us who DON’T care about the sex or the race of the candidate, we are less likely to pick up on the alleged sexism of the media, in respect to Hillary…... And then there’s george bush…. he can’t speak worth a damn, and consistently butchers and insults the established Mother tongue of our nation..”

Back to your contrived duplicity (er, uhh, I mean political correctness…) and dubious hypocrisy masquerading in a guise as false as the “truths” spouted by your favorite (black) candidate, cyrena.

Of course, you “don’t care about sex” unless it is to criticize and attack a man who doesn’t agree with you. If that man happens to be “white”, then he gets both barrels, uhh.

And that is especially if he has criticised your darling fantasising pretty-man, Barack Obama. Strange too that you have deemed English to be America’s “mother tongue” although you have stated that you have Native American ancestry yourself, cyrena.

In that, as with so many other things, you are just like our bleeding Jew, lilmamzer, and his racist diatribes. Both of you really want the kind of change which will bring your own minority groups to power in the USA - and for your own exclusive benefit.

Will that be better for Native Americans or Latinos or Arabs or Asians? Most probably not. Will it lead to WW3? Most probably. The reason is that you don’t really give a damn about anyone esle on the planet except your precious selves.

Are we talking about media bias? No, Holy Smoly, That’s the problem. Diversionary tactics about religion and sexuality and morality, and blah, blah, blah by you two only disguise your true agenda. Consequently, the new world order will be run to suit a strange alliance of Neocons and African-Americians and AIPAC if BO ever wins.

Now let me read between the lines. Lets see, black male, writes like a Republican, already voted for Obama and has second thoughts. Has great difficulty understanding gender. Very happy most of media is owned and controlled by Republicans.
Bill Clinton is a spouse of a candidate. The airways are public and he can say whatever he wants. We had some great years when our 401 was climbing, no deficits, Family leave. Traveled many times to mid east to create peace. Bartered the Irish war. Yes I think you do not watch TV, you sleep a lot, if you think it is fair and unbiased. Rush must be your mouthpiece.

I ask, can you think logically?
1) You are a College football coach going to the finals. Your team consists of all seniors. A friend calls you and tells you there is a freshman player that can really run and you should play him. You probably would think about one second, even if this is your dear friend, and continue to play to win with your first string.
Or another example,
2) You are the CEO of a billion-dollar company and you have to be out of the country for 3 months. You know this junior that has been with the company 2 years and he can never find his papers or his pencils but he can give a fine speech at the board meeting. Now you would never consider leaving your company in his hands. Instead you assign your most qualified person that knows your business and has been there at your side for 15 years.

Hillary Clinton is the best choice, the most qualified candidate for President of the United States of America.

Democrats are coming out in numbers because of the last 8 years. We have all been waiting to elect a person that is an obvious contrast the present administration.
They still have not forgotten Florida and how very wrong the Supreme Court was to take the rights of the American voters away by their mistake in selecting our President.
When we elect a member to Congress, regardless of party, they represent all the people in their State. Fortunately for all of us, Hillary Clinton will represent all people and begin to repair all the fractures that have occurred.

At what is now, the top of this thread, jbart asks why all discussions must come around to religious morality…rather than reason. The question is both fair and valid.

Another fair and valid question would be: why must all threads become the defense or prosecution of one candidate over an other. That was the purpose of my reply to Maani. “As for lying, all politicians lie…it is axiomatic.”

In the interest of full disclosure, i do think that Sen Obama is a better candidate for this country at this point in time. However, i am not a “supporter” of his in any way; i did not vote for him in my primary. A critique of Sen Clinton, particularly one that is pointedly balanced…and hence a general critique…is not the same thing as support for Sen Obama.

In other words, my world view is not constrained by the small and/or petty nature of anyone else’s…not an unnamed participant on an internet comment thread; not a presidential candidate regardless of race, creed, or color; and not, hopefully, even my own.

While I can appreciate what you are trying to do, it is nonetheless highly patronizing, as it assumes that no one who is a believer can or does make decisions that are not premised entirely on their faith. Indeed, taking your comment to its logical conclusion, you are also suggesting that no one of faith supports the separation of church and state.

Neither of these premises are true. Yes, my faith informs my decisions, but is not always the be-all and end-all of them. And sometimes my faith leads me to decisions that would seem antithetical to it (as MMC will be more than happy to tell you…LOL).

People of faith are not a homogeneous group of anti-science people who believe that the world is 6000 years old, or that the sun revolves around the earth. Nor would many of us “wish you to suffer hellfire and damnation” (though I can thing of some here who might…LOL) for being an atheist, or asking us to hypothetically consider that there is no God.

Talking “down” to believers, as you do, is not the best way to “break the ice” or “make friends and influence people.” Simply state your case or ask your question, and wait for responses - like everyone else. That would serve you much better.

“In their appraisals of Hillary Clinton, the pollsters and pundits who have not gotten beyond that mommy/ball-buster teeter-totter narrative of American womanhood also have not begun to diagnose gender dynamics beyond the perspective of the little boy and his mom. A lot of female voters, however, may be factoring in a whole other kind of female archetype, whose wet eyes do not signal weakness and whose flashes of anger do not signal coldness, only pragmatic perseverance.

If pundits ever tried to understand what some female voters know about the complexity of women’s lives, they might begin to comprehend the appeal of a female candidate whose ethic of caring and whose posture of femininity derive from responsibilities beyond the maternal. And then they might begin to understand the affection of women in New Hampshire who put her over the top.”

IMO- The media is very anti-Hillary. The pictures of her in the LATimes always have her with her mouth wide open and her eyes large and staring. The media make states that Obamais attracting young voters and the intellectual elite (as well as blacks, naturally) whereas Hillary is attracting blue collar workers, Latinos,old people and women (even though the youth vote went to Hillary in California). So this is subtly telling people that if you vote Hillary you are poor, old, from Mexico or a woman…. and we don’t want to be in any of those groups do we???? So it is no surprise to me that my boss voted for Obama; oh okay Dr. ????? now I know you are one of the intellectual elite and much younger than I thought.

It’s the War, Stupid! That is what all of this is really about! Hillary Clinton is instinctively bellicose and has seen war as a positive solution—and may again with Iran. Barack Obama is instinctively diplomatic and sees talking as the first, second, third and thirteenth step. War is the absolute last choice!

I find it so refreshing to read your very poignant and honest comment. I totally with your insight that said,”...No woman with Obama’s credentials have a chance….” What a shame—-this highly qualified woman has been so unfairly vilified for so long. Hope I live to see a day an able qualified woman is being judged on her own merit,not by perceotions created by unfair media. Obama reminds me of the Emperor in the fable,“Emperor’s Clothes”. Sooner or later we will see his (almost) naked body: hopefully though it would not be too late for us to turn the trend of electing a young motivational speaker with good looks and enthusiastic young followers. When I arrived in my beloved America 39 years ago,with such hopes,I never had dreamed that politics could be this dirty and ugly,lacking basic human decency. America has given me so many wonderful oppotunities—it’s my turn to give back with the right qualified person in charge of this beautiful land called America.

I have a simple question re: the many of the comments submitted so far. Why do you guys keep your respective religious beliefs as a major justification as the part of your comments that you use to justify your position(s)? Why not try “making your opinion” known without it. Can’t you separate your religion from the popular discourse? Can’t you comment, without relying on your religious beliefs, to “make your” point? Try using your intelligence and logical mind to discuss matters that affect all of us. You might find that there can be an agreement/consensus without the “influence” of your religious beliefs/doctrines/dogma.
Give us “non-believers” a chance to discuss the issues with you, on a level playing field.
Try using a “given”. For example, as a given, theyre IS NO GOD.
Okay, calm down, take a deep breath, and please dont wish me to suffer “hell/fire & damnation”. Are you calm yet? Remember, deep breaths. Free your minds. That’s it, you’re doing it. You are willing to “consider” that there is NO GOD. Are you all right? Do you need a glass of water? Shhh. Calm down, everything is alright. Shhh.
So, how are we doing? Are you okay? Good. Now try to see the situation and examine the possibilities for solutions to the problems before us. Remember, this has to occur without God, guys. Are you seeing things more clearly yet? If not, you probably still can’t “imagine” the scenario minus a GOD that dictates behavior. If that is the case, go away from sites like these which require straight thinking and solutions offered, and that are “uncompromised” by outside, supernatural, forces.

Holy Smoly! How did an article about media bias come to have all of these comments about religion and sexuality and morality, and blah, blah, blah?

Eugene is a great journalist, and while this is an OK piece, its not necessarily one of his best. NOW, I say that acknowledging it to be my own assessment, based ONLY on the subject matter, which is a difficult subject matter, and he sums that up here

 Theres also pretty solid consensus on whats racist and what isnt. The views on sexism are less settled.

Thats the problem. Not the writing, or even the position hes taken, but the fact that views on sexism ARE less settled, although the mentalities that are sexist or misogynist are similar. An example is any attempt by any person, (say a worker in any employed capacity) to PROVE that they have been discriminated against as a result of racism, sexism is damn near next to impossible. So, the bottom line is that racism and sexism are BOTH inherent in the social-psychology or mentality of the nation, because they always have been. Period. The collective psychology was FOUNDED on a patriarchal and racist cultural mentality, not to mention the obvious classism that resulted. To expect that to NOT be conveyed in the media, (why isnt anybody referencing Fox News and Rush Limbaugh here) is probably foolish.

On the flip side of that, we have the constant accusations flinging, that the media, or we as individuals, are racist or sexist, when in fact, THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE! Now, THATS the part that pisses me off, and yes the media DOES contribute to that. An extremely clear example of that, was the piece run by CNN back just before the SC caucus, claiming that African-American WOMEN were facing a challenge in the decision to support either a woman, or an African-American male. Talk about stirring up a whole group of citizens, who happen to be women of color; THAT DID IT! And they (CNN) got a whole bunch of flak as a result.

The message from that, was that African-American women werent bothering to pay attention to the REASONS why anybody supports ANY person for that job. Its an assumption that an entire portion of our society is going to base their selection on either the race or gender of the candidate, instead of how well they can do the job, and what their positions and ideologies are, relative to the leadership of this country. That just annoys me beyond end.

So, in that respect, the media was both sexist and racist, because while I may not speak for a majority, I think I do speak for enough of the population, to say that we dont CARE about the sex or the race of the candidate. Consequently, for those of us who DONT care about the sex or the race of the candidate, we are less likely to pick up on the alleged sexism of the media, in respect to Hillary.

Do we CARE about her voice any more than anybody cares about the obvious regional accent that John Edwards has to his voice/diction? I dont. I only care about what shes SAYING with her voice, and if shes telling the truth or lying. Same with all of the others. I wouldnt care if she didnt even HAVE a voice and had to use sign language, except of course I cant understand sign language, so shed need an interpreter and of course that opens a whole new can of worms, since people already seem to have a hard enough time interpreting what these candidates are saying, even when they speak clear English.

And then theres george bush. How the hell did HE get to be president for 2 consecutive terms, when he cant speak worth a damn, and consistently butchers and insults the established Mother tongue of our nation?

I’m very disappointed that liberals are following the lead of the ultra conservative media. Why do the media hate the Clintons so much? Because they could stand up against the ultra right. Why are the liberals so naive as to choose outstanding rhetoric over solid experience?

Why is the left wing aligned with the Voice of America? (e.g. Obama Continues to Build Momentum in Presidential Bid
by Jim Malone, V of America, 15 February 2008) or “Why Republicans Like Obama” by Peter Wehner http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020102663.html
a very clever, deceptive article, the real motives of which are revealed by the credentials of its author: former deputy assistant to President Bush and “Director of Strategic Initiatives,” now a senior fellow at the “Ethics and Public Policy Center;” he was formerly Executive Director for Policy for Empower America, a conservative public policy organization.

Why would this Bush insider pitch for Obama? This Washington Post article looks to me like yet another “strategic initiative” to empower the Bushed America by disabling the one team that could survive (has survived) their bulldozer. The power forces can bulldoze Obama; they can’t destroy two Clintons standing together. My guess is that the Obama/ Tony Rezko scandal, currently being ignored by the rightwing media, will be a top story if they succeed with their current strategy to drive Hillary Clinton out of the race.

Why arent we supporting this highly qualified woman; no woman with Obamas credentials would have a chance. Hed make a great VP, and hell be seasoned in another eight years.

“It is not the medias fault if voters fail to agree with Clinton that nominating Obama would be a leap of faith. “

Hillary’s negative ‘empty-suit’ and ‘worthless words’ comments about Obama are a huge turn-off. Hillary Clinton is enjoying the benefits of her husband’s successful Presidential reputation. Nothing of her professions of day-1 readiness assures voters that America will enjoy the liberal prosperity of the 90s if we elect her, especially after 8 years of Chimperor Dumya’s fascist colonial hegemony during the tyranny of the BFEE Junta.

Whoever wins the Presidency in 2008 will spend a good part of 2009 and 2010 trying to tape together the shredded Constitution and repeal all the flagrant violations to the Bill of Rights Dumya has signed into law. It’s going to be a while before a candidate is going to be able to implement any of the plans defined in their published campaign position papers. Hillary will be no more ready on day-1 to face the infernal bag of Bush43 crap than her rivals.

Being the latest victims of the media’s hostile fickle side has the Clintons going crazy. Hillary ain’t been too victorious of late. Back when she was ruling all the debates and the positively polled hordes all screamed her name to the rafters of heaven, the corporate propagandists all shouted ‘HILLARY!’ no fewer than 50 times per minute, focusing in on her sallow, cherubic, buck-toothed mug up close and incessantly the entire 5 minutes of every political blurb. But, with an 8-state losing streak plaguing her since Super Tuesday, her pop feminist status has fallen on serious hardship. Consequently, a lot fewer folks are tuning in to hear old girl dryly recite her boring little check list of promises she plans to competently accomplish, if elected. No one wants to see another debate, having sat through way too many already. This Presidential campaign has gone on too freaking long for most folks already. We’re as tired of political attack ads and candidates’ coy and snarky whoring appearances as we are 70s sitcom reruns because of the writers’ strike.

We, the much put-upon people, are sick and tired of crony political chicanery as usual. We need hope and faith after eight horrific years of corruption, terror, regression, and ignorance. Obama has heard our cries for change, and he’s packing out stadiums with a fresh message of faith and hope in our future. It’s Obama who now instills us with the gospel that we are the heroes and deliverers whom we have been praying would save us, and that we can redeem America from the pit in which Dumya dropped it.

You gotta admit that Obama’s message of hope and unity is a lot more attractive than Hillary’s recitation of her itenary of mundane promises she maintains she will accomplish the same way she accomplished single-payer healthcare plan success back when Bill was President. It’s the easy choice of dating your irritating mom or that cute guy you’ve been praying would call you on a Friday. Obama is young and handsome, with a buttery smooth delivery, a pretty wife, and two cute little girls. Hillary, Bill, Chelsea, and her mom Dorothy Rodham just don’t bring all that out of the voters these days. Voters get that Michelle really loves and supports Barack. Meanwhile, we wonder whether Bill is working this hard to get back into the Oval Office himself, or to just get Hillary out of the house for four sure years, still recalling his romps with Ms. Lewinski, Ms. Flowers, Ms. Thom, Ms Dicke, and Ms. Harry.

The media is just sucking all that up. The media gets paid for ratings. Ratings follow what sells.

Let’s say that no-one is perfect, neither Hillary or Obama and certainly not the (mostly male) journalists. but this is nothing more that Eugene Robinson’s thinly-veiled attempt to paper over his profession’s shortcomings and their abuses.

Its all very well to say that “the theme of press bias… is woven through the Clinton campaign’s narrative of the story…” and then to deny it but it IS actually true and was vehemently so last year.

Hillary Clinton HAS been “subjected to rank sexism” and ageism as well. One of the reasons may don’t acknowledge this yet is because they are actually not fully aware of their own psychological motivations.

That then is a kind of psychosis and such refusal and denial are pathological symptoms. But that is also a reflection of American society. Women are still not really equal and women in power are seen as frightening.

The fact that Eugene Robinson is making excuses for himself and his fellow journalists is an indicator in itself. Thus being PC about BO is itself made into an excuse to further cover their motivations. None of this article was about Barack Obama’s shortcomings.

Thus the expression of sexism has been redirected and subliminated into more abstract criticisms but it has still become obvious that this is being aimed at the woman and away from the man in question. And ageism isn’t even being mentioned…...

Interesting to note, though, that ER has come out and made these admissions and his hypocritical excuses only AFTER the damage has been done. The lie has now been carried forwards embodied in the fantasy and illusion that “change” is only possible from a young male candidate in a very boring, very conventional suit.

5. 3 1/2 years working for the poor, wow what experience, that he claims as an asset.
6. Average student (went to Harvard on what? because his non resident father went there?
7. We know so little about him and that we do know is very confused. But The republicans won’t worry about race, they will dig it all up and them it will be to late.

Jackpine, “we decided to bomb in 1998” your are rather shallow if you think Hillary meant “me & Bill”
she meant the USA. Your reasoning that it is right to
be unfair to Hillary and let Obama slide is unbelivable. That is a big problem something is fair only if you think it is, no reasoning. I know if it was Obama in the hot seat you would be screaming your head off as that would be unfair to you. I don’t expect you to understand as it is not reasonable for you to.

And so He did. But show me where He said “Judged and condemned to hell are the warmakers.” No, I’m NOT suggesting that war is good or moral. It is not. But you take to yourself powers of judgment and condemnation that Jesus Himself did not take (and will not until we are all judged).

You add, “But you want to go way beyond forgive and forget. You would forgive, forget and give her a chance to prove that she isnt a warmonger.”

First, I never suggested “forgetting.” But yes, as noted many times, I do forgive. And yes, by all means I would give her a second chance - just as Jesus did with the adultress when He refused to condemn her and told her to “Go, and sin no more.” If Jesus can give second chances to sinners, what gives you the right to deny them that second chance? What gives you the right to sit in judgment and condemnation where Jesus Himself would not?

There is nothing I “don’t understand” about “immoral war.” But there is obviously a great DEAL the YOU do not understand about Christian love, peace, forgiveness, humility and compassion. Indeed, I have a very hard time reconciling your constant claims of Jesus-inspired Christianity when you have expressed virtually no peace, forgiveness or compassion on these boards, but only judgment, condemnation, name-calling, condescension and a holier-than-thou attitude toward Hillary’s judgment on her vote.

I feel no “love” coming from you at all, Christian or otherwise. And love was Jesus’ first and foremost principle.

This rant against homosexuality and erotic love aptly encapsules the dogma of the religious right of which they are neither. The god is love and etc. is simply further dogma. Nothing has been contributed to the conversation about the media. But the remarks do illustrate why these United States are a laughing stock around the world due to these religious fixations. Kathryn when were you given access to the mind and plans of this deity?

Following the religious theme, I’ve always thought the portrayal of the press in Jesus Christ Superstar rather accurate. The media are owned by large corporations and reflect the opinions of the corporate states. We see the world, in MSM, according to Murdoch, GE, Cap City and Sony.

I see your point, Maani, but let’s be realistic. The Clintons have a long history of this sort of behavior. And that was hardly the first time that Norman Hsu has come up in their political lives.

I don’t think that Obama gets a “free” ride, but it is certainly true that he’s under less, and less intense scrutiny than Sen Clinton. But i’ll say it again, there is a long history with the Clintons…its the flip side of claiming experience as a positive.

As for lying, all politicians lie…its axiomatic. Did Sen Obama lie about Rezko, certainly. On the other hand, in the LA debate Sen Clinton had at least one bold faced lie that i can think of off the top of my head: when she talked about how “we decided to bomb in 1998”. As i’ve said before, she had no security clearance so she couldn’t have been involved in that decision; furthermore, she was not speaking to her husband at the time because he had recently been caught cheating on her…again.

You can complain until the cows come home that Sen Clinton isn’t getting a “fair” shake, but if you didn’t expect the media to drag out every skeleton from their combined closet…you were fooling yourself. And this is one of the reasons i think she is the wrong person for this election cycle; nothing will get done with 4 years of this. And they are a target because they make themselves a target.

Another example of how political pundits choose to ignore the facts over their own ‘feelings.’ There already have been many studies that clearly demonstrate that Hillary has received more negative coverage than any of the other Republican or Democratic candidates.
Our “free” press has been the source of much of the division and hate we see in our society. Obama has a profound message that rings true to many of us. Too bad he is not courageous or selfless enough when division and hatred anoints him as the “media’s messiah.”
Most people agree that there needs to be a cure caused by the divisiveness caused by party politics. But what about the divisions caused by the media?

Let me give just one example of how media coverage of the two candidates has been lopsided, and Robinson is wrong.

When Hillary was found to have taken money from Norman Hsu, the incident was front-page news for over a week, despite the fact that Hillary returned the money almost immediately. The story was repeatedly flogged, and Hillary was lambasted over and over.

When Obama was found to have taken money from Tony Rezko (which Obama also offloaded quickly), the incident barely made the front page, and disappeared quickly. No flogging or lambasting for Obama.

Yet in Obama’s case, there was far more of a reason to flog and lambaste him. As you will all remember, during the debate in which Hillary accused Obama of working for a “slumlord,” Obama stated - publicly, in front of millions of people - that “the only” connection between him and Rezko was “5 hours” of time as a “junior attorney” on “a single case.”

Yet not only did Obama accept tens of thousands of dollars from Rezko for his campaigns, but he and Rezko purchased a real estate lot together - after the case on which Obama worked as a “junior attorney” - which put them in close working proximity for many months.

Thus, Obama LIED - bald-faced and blatantly, in front of millions of viewers on TV. Yet NO ONE has called him on this. NOT ONE MEDIA OUTLET, either mainstream or alternative.

That is just ONE example of how the media has given Obama a free pass while making sure that ANYTHING Hillary does is scrutinized to the nth degree.

If you Obama fans keep bringing up the vote on the war as a reason not to vote for Hillary, you prove to me you aren’t even fit to vote. You should be chastising GW, Cheney, Condi. Holy cow you act like she is the only one who voted and sent the troops into Iraq.
Katherine, NO ONE HAS SAID THIS IS A MORAL WAR !!!
Where are you coming up with that. Thats what the republicans say, I am stupid, you are a republican and a HYPOCRYT too. No christian I know condems people the way you do, therefore, I say you are not a chistian.

I have responded to this before, and you know my answers. Yet NONE of your continued accusations and comments - EVEN IF CORRECT - change the fact that you are a hypocrite for accusing someone of condemning people when you yourself do the same. NOTHING you have said changes that.

I completely agree, and this problem extends way beyond Hillary, even though she has bore the brunt in this current election. As in regards to any topic or other individual receiving public attention in this nation, the media too often dictates our opinion of individuals and has a disgusting influence on public perception as a whole. Sure, we all knew that both Hillary and Obama were going to face all types of scrutiny due to their “differences,” but the media has taken the opportunity to cross the line way too far. It’s funny how Americas obsession with embarrassing photos of celebrities has pretty much consumed the political realm as well. The media continues to use their endless powers to negate their responsibility of educating the public, in hopes of electing the best possible leader for our nation, to worrying about which candidate is the most aesthetically pleasing. The media need to take responsibility for their actions end of story. Despite who the Democratic candidate ends up being, the media has removed all possibility of election really serving as one of change, one in which voters are empowered to speak out and take their values to the ballot. Instead, once again, the public is bombarded with images and language that corral their opinions rather than with the important knowledge they need to make informed decisions.

Eugene Robinson is a lapdog for Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson. He is part of the MSNBC sexist and bigoted reporting.

Of COURSE, he didn’t see it this way when Imus was getting it from every direction.

Robinson is just another reason not to ever watch MSNBC.

He brings up the fact that Obama has released his tax reports but fails to mention anything about his
1. voting present over 100 times
2. standing hand in hand with homophobes
3. his involvment with slum lords
4. his lack of experience.

It is true that they have given Obama special attention over less than so for Hillary.

Look back at the infamouse Philadelphia debate that snagged Hillary on drivers licenses for illegals.
We heard nothing but that constantly, everyday, all the time until I thought I was going to throw-up if I heard it anymore.

Then, there was the very next debate where Obama stumbled all over himself with the same question.
I thought here we go again!, but to my utter amazement, not one mention!

Other scenarios playes to this too. Hillary has been the scapegoat for the medias bias ever since.

They even put an un-flattering picture of her on some news outlets where she looked so tired and dishevled due to non-stop campaigning.

All other candidates I’m sure looked and went through the same thing, but you didn’t see their faces plastered all over the papers and tv’s., with captions under them saying “is this what you want your next president to look like”?

Very un-professional to say the least.

But, I’ve always accused the media of this very thing and I’m sure I’m not the only one who has seen it like it truly is. (looking for ratings in all the wrong ways.)

Getting back on topic, since Robinson has shown time and again that he is the LEAST trustworthy writer on LieDig, I find this piece no better or more honest than most of what he writes. He is a media shill who will not accept his own culpability, or that of the MSM (and some of the AM as well), with regard to this issue.

Need I remind you the number of times - and often the vehemence with which - you have condemned ME for my support of Hillary vis-a-vis her vote for the Iraq War resolution? The names you have called me? And at least once specifically suggesting I would go to hell for it?

My dear friend, I have but three phrases for you:

“Judge not, lest ye be judged in equal measure.”

“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

“Take the log out of your own eye before you take the splinter out of another’s.”

All voters visit http://www.massresistance.org. Also google
Boston’s Children’s Hospital Sex Change Clinic. Children are being denied their innocense and childhoods, at the expense of Adults sexual desires.
Children and their parents are being exploited.

Guess what John Lewis (civil rights) just changed his support from Hillary to Obama. What color is he, Black !!!!!!!!!! WAKE UP AMERICA THIS IS GOING TO BE A BIG PROBLEM . Yes I was yelling you cap freaks out there.

Eugene Robinson, those who say this campaign has nothing to do with race or gender are lying to them selves. YES, the media is biased and that is gender bias, you are race biased and gender biased But, heaven forbid if any one should mention it. Well, I am mentioning it, there is a group of republicans who are BLACK and for Obama even tho there beliefs don’t match Obamas,
their explanation ?? you can’t have a candidate whom you totally agree with!!! The super delegates who are waffling on their support for HILLARY, guess what, they are black. Obama is exploiting his poor mothers death for his campaign and I guess everyone thinks its fine I think it is digusting and the insurance plan he is proposing is NOT WORKABLE. Hillarys daughter gets horribly wronged for campaigning for her mother and if Hillary challenges Obama in any way she is being disrespectful or a racist. This is just the most ridiculous campaign in HISTORY. BUT, the young people want CHANGE, well if Obama is elected we will have change alright but it will be nothing like what we want.

Enough with the vapid, simplistic, bastardized Christianity. Jesus would be ashamed of the abomination that the war mongering United States has made of the religion founded in his name.

I don’t know about diversity of sexual equipment, but some gender diversity, in the greatest nation on earth’s White House, some 232 years after its founding, would be a welcome, and long overdue change.

Then maybe we can get a truly different, none male prejudiced, mind-set in America. A mind-set which doesn’t think kill, kill, kill is always the solution, but knows what it’s like to give life and knows what the true cost of losing it means.

Hillary in the White House will inspire future daughters to be courageous and make a change in a world dominated by violent males.

Like a pack of feral dogs checking to see what the other’s sex life is like…. and so a thread, labeled “Clinton’s vs the media” becomes another pulpit where folks who “believe” debate those dolorous beliefs on, and forever.

“Conservative” in my case involves keeping my nose OUT of business which will not effect my life, or the lives of loved ones. Gay marriage is one of those areas. What consenting people do with each other is THEIR business.

The absolute affrontary of folks who mess in the lives of others is as objectionable, and disgusting to me as any of these Non sequitur subjects may be to you.

Now about Clintons and the media, Doing my own research locally, Clinton’s name appears 48 times in today’s Bangor Newspaper.